If it looks for passive movement data, why not create a bunch of accounts and put some old cell phones to good use broadcasting traffic data? Hook them up to wireless, use a VPN if needed to mask the IP, and show "cars" stopped. You could add in accident reports to make it more realistic. Maybe even some VMs running an iPhone simulator to increase the number of spoofed cars. Remember, technology is your friend if used correctly; just don't get any on you...
Google is investing massively abroad, such as in Zurich, Switzerland, where privacy laws are especially strong. Expect that if US laws continue to have negative effects on Google income, the company is going to be more and more international.
Which is pretty much irrelevant when it comes to a US Court requiring them to turn over the data if they have it. It used to be, in the age of paper, that stuff could be kept off-shore making it essentially unreachable; especially since no one might even now it existed unless someone told the authorities. Now, a US corporations data is essentially one big collection of stuff to be made available on demand; and refusal to turn it over could result in fines and contempt charges. In the end, he with the biggest stick wins.
Branson has a track record of seriously underestimating the difficulty of the challenges he picks. Plus he seems to believe he can replicate serious engineering achievements - eg space flight - on a shoestring budget. Well sorry, but you can't. And I suspect the same goes for his submersible. Diving down 7 miles takes some seriously well thought out and strong engineering, not just some recreational sub with a few extra inches thickness of hill.
Very true. Submarines are very complex craft that operate in a very hostile environment, and driving one takes skill, practice and teamwork. Flying along the ocean floor may sound fun and straightforward, and it is until you accidentally hit something and Davy Jones starts letting his water into your people tank.
"I didn't sell anything on Silk Road 2. I built a website others used to sell those things. Would you arrest the CEO of Ebay if one of its customers sold something that was illegal?"
And I can imagine the judge's response: "Guilty. Next."
With all the focus on Title IX, and no doubt uncertainty around just what the law might require, or how it would be interpreted, relative to online classes MIT may have chosen the safest possible path to avoid problems. In the end, while the ma weigh the impact of removing the material on learning, they will act to protect the institution.
I'm surprised this hasn't been put to the test already. There are about 200 accidents and 1-2 fatalities per 100 million miles driven. Uber and Lyft must be closing in on that number by now, and since they're primarily about accident-prone city driving I'd expect it to be faster.
Surely something has happened by now that would have provoked the insurance companies' ire and make them start sending out warnings, but I haven't heard about it. Am I just missing it? Or have they handled it all in house so far?
My guess is insurance companies only worry about it after an accident; they simply can say "Sorry, not covered..." and walk away so their is no need to try to ferret out drivers in advance.
or go out of business as soon as they notice that more and more people are no longer finding their news site.
This is a classic case of someone assuming something has value, that can be extracted from a user, simply because it is available or used. Google probably aggregates a lot more news then ever gets read; to assume that is a signal that their is value in the content being used. In reality, it is used because it is free, much like the free papers you see in many cities. People will read them if they are free but if they have to pay then they pass. As a result, papers give out free editions to reach an audience and subsidize it with ads. Google is essentially doing part of that by providing access to the news, and by taking that away the publishers will lose the eyeballs for their ads.
The real question is will they go back and demand that lawmakers "fix" this by forcing Google to aggregate and pay or realize their basic assumption is wrong and abolish the law? I'd bet on some variant of the former.
Freedom 0 exists to avoid making a moral choice between good and bad.
Software is simply a tool, there is no moral choice involved in its creation; that comes when someone decides to use it. As such, FOSS simply allows creation of software via a community model. Other less free ones exist as well but to say model X is a more more moral choice because it confirms to your view of how software should be developed is not a valid argument for it being more moral.
If we accept the argument that Free software is used for the purposes of good, then we also have to accept responsibility for some of the bad.
Hardly. A tools creator is not responsible for how it is used unless they participate in its use. If they create it for an immoral purpose then they share the responsibility; however if they create it for other reasons then they bear no blame for its immoral use.
At the end of the day people could choose to use proprietry software for the "bad", they could still do it, but at least in theory it would be expensive for them.
The cost of a tool has no bearing on whether it is used of good or bad. TFA argument is the free riders are bad; a position which is in total opposition to the concept of FOSS. Th writer seems to believe that because someone uses FOSS they incur an obligation to provide financial support for its further development; a position that is neither supported by the gPL nor the philosophy of FOSS. A user's obligation when using GPL's software is pretty clear and the solution to the writer's concern is not to use the GPL if you want renumeration from people using the software yo create. There is no moral decision involved, it is strictly a business one.
Another point that is of very concern to the customer, what will happen if you have an accident? Will the car owner insurance pay for the passenger? Can the passenger sue the driver? Can the passenger sue Uber? As far as I know, the standard insurance does not cover such activity as taking passenger for a fee on a regular basis.
Most personal car policy exclude commercial use, so no the owner's policy would not provide coverage; according to some news accounts insurers cancel policy if they find out your driving for Uber or Lyft or some other service. That's not surprising since they would not want to be held liable by a court despite their exclusion. While Uber advertises it has insurance for its drivers it's not clear policy exclusions are included. For example, it appears if the Uber driver fails to activate the ride there is no coverage. What happens if the driver lets a friend use his or her car to do the ride? What happens if there is more losses than the $1 million in coverage? Uber would no doubt say they are not liable, so who is? Is the driver your agent, making you responsible for the loss?
Uber et. al. have a good idea but I disagree with their claim they are not a taxi / limo service. All they have done is take the old model of "call 555-TAXI" and replace the landline and dispatcher with an app; as such they should conform to the laws regulating such services. If they can't make a go of it while doing that then it wasn't a very good idea after all.
"they cannot stop you from doing whatever you want with the code", well they can put it in a box with no connections on it and sell the box (e.g TV's), or put it behind a webserver, or deny modified software even exists.
If they redistribute the code without complying with the license then they could be compelled by court to comply if somme wanted to force the issue. No model is going to ensure everyone plays by the rules without being forced to; that they behave that way doesn't make the software any less free.
Freedom goes beyond code, what about freedom of speech and the right to privacy.
Now you're sounding like a troll. None of those have anything to do with free software as you are not forced to speak (i.e. contribute to the development) nor prevented from speaking (using the code). As for privacy, how does free software impact your right to privacy? It's simply there for you to use if you want to and you can determine if it meets your "privacy" standard.
Where would firewalls and surveilence networks be without free software. Or patent protected global ecommerce sites.
Free softare should be about more than software.
All of those things would exist without free software as well. Your assumption that somehow things that exist today would not if there was no free software is flawed; as evidenced by the number of proprietary, non-free alternatives to most free software. You may not like that people can make money off of free software but that has been a feature of it from the beginning.
I didnt say the GPL limits freedom.
I implied the GPL makes it easier for corporations to limit peoples freedom.
How so? You have all the freedom in the world to use the code as you see fit no matter what someone else does with it. If anything, the GPL prevents someone from limiting your freedom since they cannot stop you from doing whatever you want with the code, all they can do is use the code how they want to.
Why do people care about software freedom and not care about freedom in real life.
What is the point in making software free if its going to be used to make society less free. Which is what has happened, corporations use software freedom to leaverage their non-software power over society.
The GPL in no way limits freedom in real life. Anyone is free to use the code in any way they see fit without paying a penny. That is the most free model available. TFA's author main point is upset that companies don't support free software nd seem stop believe that FOSS is more worthy of development than other project companies work on and thus they freeload on FOSS; except that they are not really freeloading since the GPL specifically allows such behavior as part of the license.
As far as the "rules", I hardly see the difference between clicking an app and sending someone a text message asking for a ride. Only one of those activities is under heavy scrutiny today.
Except they are not merely texting a friend for a ride. Uber may be using an app but they are no different in principle than some person answering a phone and telling a cabby to pick up a ride at location X; and thus should play by the same rules. Uber thinks by simply changing how a cab is dispatched changes the business model; nothing could be further from the truth. They want all the benefits of running a cab service but none of the accountability, probably because if they actually have to follow the rules they would not be making any money. If I had a cab company I'd be looking how can I adapt Uber's use of an app to my company and drive their profit down to unacceptable levels so they exit the market. Even Uber realizes there is no sustainable advantage in their model since they allegedly use some shady tactics to hurt competitors. The black sedan company I use already have an app that lets me book a car in any city they serve so I don't see how Uber is a good long term bet.
Try riding a cab in city where they aren't properly regulated and you may change your mind after you get in a cab with a driver who asks you for directions in a city you do not live in and is driving a clapped out ex cop car with bad shocks, a check engine light that's on and whose brakes squeal like metal to metal contact is being made whenever he uses them.
Sounds just like Seattle's regulated taxis. Not sure what the problem is.
Have to make sure you experience the same wilily of ride with Uber...
The idea that we need to regulate me paying one person to transport me from one spot to another is, frankly, ridiculous.
Try riding a cab in city where they aren't properly regulated and you may change your mind after you get in a cab with a driver who asks you for directions in a city you do not live in and is driving a clapped out ex cop car with bad shocks, a check engine light that's on and whose brakes squeal like metal to metal contact is being made whenever he uses them.
What reason is there for regulating commerce in this manner besides cartelization of the transport industry?
Why is it a crime for me to charge someone $40 to take them to the airport in my car?
Sure, regulation limits competition and part of the reasons there is a strong move to keep regulations in place is to keep the value of the medallion artificially high. OTOH, simply arguing because you use an app to hail a ride you are somehow different and not subject to the same rules is ridiculous. There just gypsy cabs with a nicer front end for hailing them.
Stake YOUR livelyhood on it and i would take you more seriously, i.e. you first.
There needs to be a licence that obligates those who profit from software to contribute whilst still allowing colaborative development and still free for personal use.
Corporate freeloaders sponging off the hard work of volunteers is just crazy,.
Freedom 0 (free to use for any purpose) is much to blame, it abandons any sense of ethics, and even demands the freedom to make society less free.
Why? A GPL is only one way to license and develop code, and everyone who uses it understands the ramifications. There is no obligation to contribute while everyone is free to use it as they say fit. the only obligation is to release any modified code you distribute under the GPL. As with any contract you are free to accept it or not. No one is sponging off anyone given the license freely allows anyone to use the code with no expectation of renumeration. If you don't like the GPL you can create your own license and use it; no one is stopping you from doing that. If you don't like someone using code you write and distribute under the GPL then don't use the GPL. It's pretty simple.
You sound like a horribly bad PM, the things you complained about are the PM's responsibility . I am sure no one was sad to see you go....
sheesh.
Actually, no. The problem was I was very good at it, knew how to work the system to get stuff done and minimize the impact of stupidity on my team, and as a result kept getting picked to do PM work on tough projects even when I said I do not do PM work; that's not what I was hired to do nor what I want to spend a career doing. And, yes, that is the PM's job and was why I did it but I finally said "screw this" and left. As for my team, I had their back and took care of them which is why they kept working for me even when they could leave the project. I can see why good PMs bail; they don't need all the crap that goes with the job when they can make more money and have less stress doing something else.
In more than 15 years I haven't met a certified PM who lasted more than a few years in that kind of job. The good ones evolve towards senior management, the bad ones end up leading scrum master workshops where people spend their time openly playing angry birds on their phone then use the cheap printout certificate of achievement as an ironic prop in their cubicle.
Having been involved in IT PM I concur. I ran away as fast as I could and even quit a job after they asked me to go manage another project; trying to run herd on a bunch of techies, sitting in on endless worthless meetings where nothing is decided, and fighting management who seems to think changing specifications constantly will somehow magically keep a project on schedule is not my idea of fun. Oh yea, and having management that believed everything the salesperson said and then argues when you try to explain that converting thousands of records, all of which where entered in a system that didn't enforce data integrity, will take longer than 2 weeks, cost 10x as much and they will still loses 20% of the data. Don't even get me started on the "We're different at this location so we need to do it this way" after everyone agreed to one standard approach.
That won't work. I did it. Getting a MBA will not automatically get you into management or into the business side.
What will happen is that after 2+ years and a ton of money, you'll be back to doing what you were doing but with very expensive letters after your name - that no one in technology really cares about. I went to a top 40 school - not good enough for a lucrative consulting gigs like the Harvard guys get.
It really depends on what you want to do. yea, if you want to move back into tech you probably will get zero ROI. A key point is to look at a school's hiring results and see if the $ and companies will make it worthwhile.
What I advise people who ask is first move into the business side or leadership roles - like a tech lead.
And keep moving towards management - many companies have that kind of career path.
Good advice since experience helps a lot in post-MBA hiring.
As far as the MBA. Only get it if you really need it to get a job or to keep your job. And ideally have your company pay for it and allow for you to take time to take classes, work on projects, and study during business hours and even on company time.
Also good advice. If your company will foot the bill that means they value the degree and saves you money.
Then there's this advice I received from a senior VP of a very large job site (via a common friend who forwarded his email to me): "MBA degrees are worthless."
Shit. Too late.
That really depends on what you want to do. if you want to go back into an IT role an MBA is worthless; just as an IT degree is probably worthless if you want to do organizational development work. If you plan to switch careers then it can be helpful. It also depends on the school. There are a lot of schools offering MBAs that may have some regional recognition but not much value nationally and probably much less of a network, which is the real value of the MBA. Grades also count.
I was made to sign a document wherein I could not negotiate employment with a client company directly. A lawyer told me that document does not hold up in court because no one can stop you from looking for work.
That one I'd check on. They can't stop you from looking for work, but they can hold you liable for the costs to the recruiting firm of replacing a temp worker and you were in breach of contract. So you might have to pay tens of thousands in damages to the temp agency.
The real question is the agreement legally binding. Laws very state to state, and as my lawyer pointed out what is enforceable today may not be tomorrow since courts decide these types of cases a lot. They can always sue but if they have little chance of winning and / or there is very little money at stake may simply let it ride.
If it were me and a client wanted to hire me as an employee and not a contractor, I'd let the client know I need to discuss this with the agency due to my employment contract and then reach out to the agency. That way I'd be completely up front with everyone and have the client watching out for my back as well. Chances are the agency doesn't want to upset a client and may already have contractual agreements to deal with such a circumstance. Quite frankly, every place that I've worked it's never been an issue hiring contractors as employees; the agency wants to keep good relationships and having an ex-employee, who left under good terms, at the client is a plus as well.
is the internet is slowly splitting into anonymous and identifiable user connections. The security aspects aside, anon connections makes it much more difficult to track and collect user data for sale or to promote a site's products. As a result, I think we'll see more and more efforts to block anon connection as the real cost is in the lost revenue, not the amounts lost to criminal activities. If the losses due to theft and fraud become to large the banks will figure it out; right now my guess the cost of solving the problem is great rattan the losses so there is no strong incentive to fix it.
Slashdot Mirror
If it looks for passive movement data, why not create a bunch of accounts and put some old cell phones to good use broadcasting traffic data? Hook them up to wireless, use a VPN if needed to mask the IP, and show "cars" stopped. You could add in accident reports to make it more realistic. Maybe even some VMs running an iPhone simulator to increase the number of spoofed cars. Remember, technology is your friend if used correctly; just don't get any on you...
Google is investing massively abroad, such as in Zurich, Switzerland, where privacy laws are especially strong. Expect that if US laws continue to have negative effects on Google income, the company is going to be more and more international.
Which is pretty much irrelevant when it comes to a US Court requiring them to turn over the data if they have it. It used to be, in the age of paper, that stuff could be kept off-shore making it essentially unreachable; especially since no one might even now it existed unless someone told the authorities. Now, a US corporations data is essentially one big collection of stuff to be made available on demand; and refusal to turn it over could result in fines and contempt charges. In the end, he with the biggest stick wins.
Branson has a track record of seriously underestimating the difficulty of the challenges he picks. Plus he seems to believe he can replicate serious engineering achievements - eg space flight - on a shoestring budget. Well sorry, but you can't. And I suspect the same goes for his submersible. Diving down 7 miles takes some seriously well thought out and strong engineering, not just some recreational sub with a few extra inches thickness of hill.
Very true. Submarines are very complex craft that operate in a very hostile environment, and driving one takes skill, practice and teamwork. Flying along the ocean floor may sound fun and straightforward, and it is until you accidentally hit something and Davy Jones starts letting his water into your people tank.
Link:http://www.amazon.com/Denon-AK...">
Audio is just a crazy world of snake oil and placebo.
Of course it is. How else could they sell this:P>
Be sure to read the reviews to understand why this cable is superior to others...
I can imagine the defense.
"I didn't sell anything on Silk Road 2. I built a website others used to sell those things. Would you arrest the CEO of Ebay if one of its customers sold something that was illegal?"
And I can imagine the judge's response: "Guilty. Next."
Say no more....
With all the focus on Title IX, and no doubt uncertainty around just what the law might require, or how it would be interpreted, relative to online classes MIT may have chosen the safest possible path to avoid problems. In the end, while the ma weigh the impact of removing the material on learning, they will act to protect the institution.
I'm surprised this hasn't been put to the test already. There are about 200 accidents and 1-2 fatalities per 100 million miles driven. Uber and Lyft must be closing in on that number by now, and since they're primarily about accident-prone city driving I'd expect it to be faster.
Surely something has happened by now that would have provoked the insurance companies' ire and make them start sending out warnings, but I haven't heard about it. Am I just missing it? Or have they handled it all in house so far?
My guess is insurance companies only worry about it after an accident; they simply can say "Sorry, not covered..." and walk away so their is no need to try to ferret out drivers in advance.
or go out of business as soon as they notice that more and more people are no longer finding their news site.
This is a classic case of someone assuming something has value, that can be extracted from a user, simply because it is available or used. Google probably aggregates a lot more news then ever gets read; to assume that is a signal that their is value in the content being used. In reality, it is used because it is free, much like the free papers you see in many cities. People will read them if they are free but if they have to pay then they pass. As a result, papers give out free editions to reach an audience and subsidize it with ads. Google is essentially doing part of that by providing access to the news, and by taking that away the publishers will lose the eyeballs for their ads.
The real question is will they go back and demand that lawmakers "fix" this by forcing Google to aggregate and pay or realize their basic assumption is wrong and abolish the law? I'd bet on some variant of the former.
There is no moral decision involved, it is strictly a business one.
And there you have it, i will say no more.
Correct. Choosing a software license is not a moral decision.
Freedom 0 exists to avoid making a moral choice between good and bad.
Software is simply a tool, there is no moral choice involved in its creation; that comes when someone decides to use it. As such, FOSS simply allows creation of software via a community model. Other less free ones exist as well but to say model X is a more more moral choice because it confirms to your view of how software should be developed is not a valid argument for it being more moral.
If we accept the argument that Free software is used for the purposes of good, then we also have to accept responsibility for some of the bad.
Hardly. A tools creator is not responsible for how it is used unless they participate in its use. If they create it for an immoral purpose then they share the responsibility; however if they create it for other reasons then they bear no blame for its immoral use.
At the end of the day people could choose to use proprietry software for the "bad", they could still do it, but at least in theory it would be expensive for them.
The cost of a tool has no bearing on whether it is used of good or bad. TFA argument is the free riders are bad; a position which is in total opposition to the concept of FOSS. Th writer seems to believe that because someone uses FOSS they incur an obligation to provide financial support for its further development; a position that is neither supported by the gPL nor the philosophy of FOSS. A user's obligation when using GPL's software is pretty clear and the solution to the writer's concern is not to use the GPL if you want renumeration from people using the software yo create. There is no moral decision involved, it is strictly a business one.
Another point that is of very concern to the customer, what will happen if you have an accident? Will the car owner insurance pay for the passenger? Can the passenger sue the driver? Can the passenger sue Uber? As far as I know, the standard insurance does not cover such activity as taking passenger for a fee on a regular basis.
Most personal car policy exclude commercial use, so no the owner's policy would not provide coverage; according to some news accounts insurers cancel policy if they find out your driving for Uber or Lyft or some other service. That's not surprising since they would not want to be held liable by a court despite their exclusion. While Uber advertises it has insurance for its drivers it's not clear policy exclusions are included. For example, it appears if the Uber driver fails to activate the ride there is no coverage. What happens if the driver lets a friend use his or her car to do the ride? What happens if there is more losses than the $1 million in coverage? Uber would no doubt say they are not liable, so who is? Is the driver your agent, making you responsible for the loss?
Uber et. al. have a good idea but I disagree with their claim they are not a taxi / limo service. All they have done is take the old model of "call 555-TAXI" and replace the landline and dispatcher with an app; as such they should conform to the laws regulating such services. If they can't make a go of it while doing that then it wasn't a very good idea after all.
Now your just trolling...
"they cannot stop you from doing whatever you want with the code", well they can put it in a box with no connections on it and sell the box (e.g TV's), or put it behind a webserver, or deny modified software even exists.
If they redistribute the code without complying with the license then they could be compelled by court to comply if somme wanted to force the issue. No model is going to ensure everyone plays by the rules without being forced to; that they behave that way doesn't make the software any less free.
Freedom goes beyond code, what about freedom of speech and the right to privacy.
Now you're sounding like a troll. None of those have anything to do with free software as you are not forced to speak (i.e. contribute to the development) nor prevented from speaking (using the code). As for privacy, how does free software impact your right to privacy? It's simply there for you to use if you want to and you can determine if it meets your "privacy" standard.
Where would firewalls and surveilence networks be without free software. Or patent protected global ecommerce sites.
Free softare should be about more than software.
All of those things would exist without free software as well. Your assumption that somehow things that exist today would not if there was no free software is flawed; as evidenced by the number of proprietary, non-free alternatives to most free software. You may not like that people can make money off of free software but that has been a feature of it from the beginning.
Free softare should be about more than software
Why?
I didnt say the GPL limits freedom. I implied the GPL makes it easier for corporations to limit peoples freedom.
How so? You have all the freedom in the world to use the code as you see fit no matter what someone else does with it. If anything, the GPL prevents someone from limiting your freedom since they cannot stop you from doing whatever you want with the code, all they can do is use the code how they want to.
Why do people care about software freedom and not care about freedom in real life.
What is the point in making software free if its going to be used to make society less free. Which is what has happened, corporations use software freedom to leaverage their non-software power over society.
The GPL in no way limits freedom in real life. Anyone is free to use the code in any way they see fit without paying a penny. That is the most free model available. TFA's author main point is upset that companies don't support free software nd seem stop believe that FOSS is more worthy of development than other project companies work on and thus they freeload on FOSS; except that they are not really freeloading since the GPL specifically allows such behavior as part of the license.
As far as the "rules", I hardly see the difference between clicking an app and sending someone a text message asking for a ride. Only one of those activities is under heavy scrutiny today.
Except they are not merely texting a friend for a ride. Uber may be using an app but they are no different in principle than some person answering a phone and telling a cabby to pick up a ride at location X; and thus should play by the same rules. Uber thinks by simply changing how a cab is dispatched changes the business model; nothing could be further from the truth. They want all the benefits of running a cab service but none of the accountability, probably because if they actually have to follow the rules they would not be making any money. If I had a cab company I'd be looking how can I adapt Uber's use of an app to my company and drive their profit down to unacceptable levels so they exit the market. Even Uber realizes there is no sustainable advantage in their model since they allegedly use some shady tactics to hurt competitors. The black sedan company I use already have an app that lets me book a car in any city they serve so I don't see how Uber is a good long term bet.
Try riding a cab in city where they aren't properly regulated and you may change your mind after you get in a cab with a driver who asks you for directions in a city you do not live in and is driving a clapped out ex cop car with bad shocks, a check engine light that's on and whose brakes squeal like metal to metal contact is being made whenever he uses them.
Sounds just like Seattle's regulated taxis. Not sure what the problem is.
Have to make sure you experience the same wilily of ride with Uber...
The idea that we need to regulate me paying one person to transport me from one spot to another is, frankly, ridiculous.
Try riding a cab in city where they aren't properly regulated and you may change your mind after you get in a cab with a driver who asks you for directions in a city you do not live in and is driving a clapped out ex cop car with bad shocks, a check engine light that's on and whose brakes squeal like metal to metal contact is being made whenever he uses them.
Voluntary certifications? Fraternal industrial associations? Basic safety inspections ? Fine.
What reason is there for regulating commerce in this manner besides cartelization of the transport industry?
Why is it a crime for me to charge someone $40 to take them to the airport in my car?
Sure, regulation limits competition and part of the reasons there is a strong move to keep regulations in place is to keep the value of the medallion artificially high. OTOH, simply arguing because you use an app to hail a ride you are somehow different and not subject to the same rules is ridiculous. There just gypsy cabs with a nicer front end for hailing them.
Stake YOUR livelyhood on it and i would take you more seriously, i.e. you first.
There needs to be a licence that obligates those who profit from software to contribute whilst still allowing colaborative development and still free for personal use.
Corporate freeloaders sponging off the hard work of volunteers is just crazy,.
Freedom 0 (free to use for any purpose) is much to blame, it abandons any sense of ethics, and even demands the freedom to make society less free.
Why? A GPL is only one way to license and develop code, and everyone who uses it understands the ramifications. There is no obligation to contribute while everyone is free to use it as they say fit. the only obligation is to release any modified code you distribute under the GPL. As with any contract you are free to accept it or not. No one is sponging off anyone given the license freely allows anyone to use the code with no expectation of renumeration. If you don't like the GPL you can create your own license and use it; no one is stopping you from doing that. If you don't like someone using code you write and distribute under the GPL then don't use the GPL. It's pretty simple.
You sound like a horribly bad PM, the things you complained about are the PM's responsibility . I am sure no one was sad to see you go....
sheesh.
Actually, no. The problem was I was very good at it, knew how to work the system to get stuff done and minimize the impact of stupidity on my team, and as a result kept getting picked to do PM work on tough projects even when I said I do not do PM work; that's not what I was hired to do nor what I want to spend a career doing. And, yes, that is the PM's job and was why I did it but I finally said "screw this" and left. As for my team, I had their back and took care of them which is why they kept working for me even when they could leave the project. I can see why good PMs bail; they don't need all the crap that goes with the job when they can make more money and have less stress doing something else.
In more than 15 years I haven't met a certified PM who lasted more than a few years in that kind of job. The good ones evolve towards senior management, the bad ones end up leading scrum master workshops where people spend their time openly playing angry birds on their phone then use the cheap printout certificate of achievement as an ironic prop in their cubicle.
Having been involved in IT PM I concur. I ran away as fast as I could and even quit a job after they asked me to go manage another project; trying to run herd on a bunch of techies, sitting in on endless worthless meetings where nothing is decided, and fighting management who seems to think changing specifications constantly will somehow magically keep a project on schedule is not my idea of fun. Oh yea, and having management that believed everything the salesperson said and then argues when you try to explain that converting thousands of records, all of which where entered in a system that didn't enforce data integrity, will take longer than 2 weeks, cost 10x as much and they will still loses 20% of the data. Don't even get me started on the "We're different at this location so we need to do it this way" after everyone agreed to one standard approach.
That won't work. I did it. Getting a MBA will not automatically get you into management or into the business side.
What will happen is that after 2+ years and a ton of money, you'll be back to doing what you were doing but with very expensive letters after your name - that no one in technology really cares about. I went to a top 40 school - not good enough for a lucrative consulting gigs like the Harvard guys get.
It really depends on what you want to do. yea, if you want to move back into tech you probably will get zero ROI. A key point is to look at a school's hiring results and see if the $ and companies will make it worthwhile.
What I advise people who ask is first move into the business side or leadership roles - like a tech lead.
And keep moving towards management - many companies have that kind of career path.
Good advice since experience helps a lot in post-MBA hiring.
As far as the MBA. Only get it if you really need it to get a job or to keep your job. And ideally have your company pay for it and allow for you to take time to take classes, work on projects, and study during business hours and even on company time.
Also good advice. If your company will foot the bill that means they value the degree and saves you money.
Then there's this advice I received from a senior VP of a very large job site (via a common friend who forwarded his email to me): "MBA degrees are worthless."
Shit. Too late.
That really depends on what you want to do. if you want to go back into an IT role an MBA is worthless; just as an IT degree is probably worthless if you want to do organizational development work. If you plan to switch careers then it can be helpful. It also depends on the school. There are a lot of schools offering MBAs that may have some regional recognition but not much value nationally and probably much less of a network, which is the real value of the MBA. Grades also count.
That one I'd check on. They can't stop you from looking for work, but they can hold you liable for the costs to the recruiting firm of replacing a temp worker and you were in breach of contract. So you might have to pay tens of thousands in damages to the temp agency.
The real question is the agreement legally binding. Laws very state to state, and as my lawyer pointed out what is enforceable today may not be tomorrow since courts decide these types of cases a lot. They can always sue but if they have little chance of winning and / or there is very little money at stake may simply let it ride.
If it were me and a client wanted to hire me as an employee and not a contractor, I'd let the client know I need to discuss this with the agency due to my employment contract and then reach out to the agency. That way I'd be completely up front with everyone and have the client watching out for my back as well. Chances are the agency doesn't want to upset a client and may already have contractual agreements to deal with such a circumstance. Quite frankly, every place that I've worked it's never been an issue hiring contractors as employees; the agency wants to keep good relationships and having an ex-employee, who left under good terms, at the client is a plus as well.
is the internet is slowly splitting into anonymous and identifiable user connections. The security aspects aside, anon connections makes it much more difficult to track and collect user data for sale or to promote a site's products. As a result, I think we'll see more and more efforts to block anon connection as the real cost is in the lost revenue, not the amounts lost to criminal activities. If the losses due to theft and fraud become to large the banks will figure it out; right now my guess the cost of solving the problem is great rattan the losses so there is no strong incentive to fix it.